So Cal Wild Fires

[MossRoad]

The problem with environmentalists...

That's a blanket statement. The real problem with the wildfires in Calif is that people are in the path of nature. Living in areas that are dry means things will burn easily. The only way to eliminate the fire is to water the heck out of everything (but they don't have enough water for that) or eliminate the fuel. You can't eliminate the fuel without eliminating the habitat for the wildlife that lives in the fuel. You can build fire resistant houses and landscape with fire resistant plants, but in a firestorm as big as some of these, even that is tough. The real solution is to build in a place that has less of a propensity to burst into flames every couple of years. The place is overpopulated.

 

[riptides]

... or eliminate the fuel. You can't eliminate the fuel without eliminating the habitat for the wildlife that lives in the fuel....

A number of factors have come together for the Californian disaster, IMHO -

- Lack of smart growth plans
(communities on the fringes of infrastructure)
(zoning for said communities)
(infringement upon national forests)

- Climate
(drought conditions on a scale of which have no measurable data)
(building in high risk areas)


and ......

- People's propensity for risk
(it will never happen to me syndrome) -or-
(lack of community knowledge, i.e. they just don't know the past)

-Mike Z.

 

[the_sandman_454]

The fuel doesn't need to be completely eliminated, just reduced to a safe level. Controlled burns on occasion are much safer than letting things build up to the point where the fire will be completely uncontrollable. This is part of where we've gotten into trouble. Years of fire suppression with little thought of how it's making things worse by eliminating nature's ability to keep areas safe, activate heat activated seeds, and the like.

For example small controlled burns staggered between areas when the Santa Ana winds are not blowing to fan the flames, seems like a reasonable measure to take to protect both the environment and the homes rather than letting significant damage happen to both thanks to the current method.

Normal wildfires are actually helpful to the environment. What we're seeing in CA now don't really seem like normal wildfires, these seem like super wildfires in areas where flammables are allowed to build up to the point where it's going to be a catastrophic fire with soil damage, and other issues.

Notice, fires like this aren't only bad for the houses. It's bad for the soil, increases runoff nearly completely because the heat can form a layer of glass from my understanding, and bad for the critters whose habitat is now completely gone.

I could be considered an environmentalist, but I do not belong to any environmental organization. Many of these groups appear to exist only for the power and money they can derive from it. Many of these groups are not in favor of common sense approaches to problems. With many they don't even use valid scientific methods, studies and such to base their claims on. They don't understand how their actions impact the environment too.

There can be a balance between humans and nature, if it's allowed to happnen.

 

[ultrarunner]

Many parts of California, like mine, require a tree permit to remove ANY tree with a trunk larger than 6" at breast height... an exception is made for Eucalyptus.

The permit requires a $50 fee, a site visit and posting the neighborhood inviting public comment prior to a hearing. The entire process takes 6 weeks.

 

[3RRL]

I have to agree somewhat with the sandman. I see it first hand.
The environmentalist have not necessarily explored every avenue. Fires are part of Natures way of house cleaning. Many species require fire to set off seedling. Take the Giant Sequoias for example. They now use controlled burns to "clean house" and set off seedlings. This is way different than previous years. Some species have a natural resistance to fires and live through them. You can see it from the many scars on those 2000 year old trees.

My point is that there are other avenues/possible solutions that seem to be blocked in many cases. On the other hand, much of it is Nature's display of it's awesome power. Don't forget the possibility of arsonists either. That changes everything.

As far as CA being overpopulated, that's true, especially in specific areas. But there is a huge vast expanse of land that is not populated either. About 150 years ago CA was not over populated. Where did all these people (like me) come from? And why? It's because of the opportunities that out weighed the possible disasters, I guess. And a choice of living where you want sounds pretty good to me. I would hate to see that change.

I hope those families that suffered losses are OK. Anytime I see a disaster like that it makes me cringe ... regardless of the reason.

AlanB, interesting observation you made. My wife and I were thinking the same thing.

 

[the_sandman_454]

I guess I'm being too general and not 100% familiar with the SoCal vegetation. Most of the specific stuff I"m talking about applies better to places with many trees and the like. Then again why not try to find some prevention methods. How about a burn on the scrub within a certain distance of homes/businesses in a season during which it isn't too horribly windy. There has to be something that can be done to prevent things from getting out of hand like it does without changing what happens naturally i.e. fires are still going to happen, let's try to control *when* they happen so they're easier to handle.

Management and proactive actions are much preferrable to me than being reactionary and putting the lives of the firefighters, pilots and so forth at risk.

 

[MikePA]

One of the participants in the current news conference indicated new neighborhoods that follow current building and design requirements are suffering much less than the older ones.

By and large, in the new ones, there was lots of fear, some shrubbery damaged, but that's it. In the older ones, there are much more dire consequences.

 

[MtnViewRanch]

It amazes me how many people have the answers to our problems and yet we still have all of our problems.

 

[RobertN]

I think what you would find, is there are thousands of miles of perimeter around all these cities, and subdivisions. The immensity of scale is incredibly massive in this case. If they were to go in and create a 300' fire break around all the subdivisions, it would take years, and cost billons of dollars.

In this case, they really put the cart in front of the horse.

I How about a burn on the scrub within a certain distance of homes/businesses in a season during which it isn't too horribly windy. There has to be something that can be done to prevent things from getting out of hand like it does without changing what happens naturally i.e. fires are still going to happen, let's try to control *when* they happen so they're easier to handle.

 

[rox]

RobertN,
We have similar topography where i live in Provence. that land is nto sjut vacant land in SoCal, somebody owns it. What they do here is they jsut pass a law that says you must cut your brush, period. If you let your property be ooverrun with brush you will be fined. Well it is not enforced as t should be, witness the horrible forest fires we have. but when people live closer togther people over here keep the brush under control. If you let your property become overgrown with brush you neighbor comes over and tells you want a fire hazard you are creating. Nw we do have really bad forest fires but somehow in this area we have very little loss of homes and olive trees. It does happen but the far majorityf the time the firefighters protect and save.

To prevent these fires int he future you pass a brush law and you put $$$ behind enforcement teams. Big fines make people toe the line.

 

[RobertN]

It amazes me how many people have the answers to our problems and yet we still have all of our problems.

Mike hit on it partly though. The newer building codes require materials and building techniques that minimize the effects of fire. Things like no wood shake roofs, enclosed eaves, etc.

There have been improvements. They are slow to happen(especially here in the Peoples Socialist Republik of Kalifornia). And, people keep building in that wildland interface zone.

There are new requirements, like the 100' clearance that CDF/Cal-fire is pushing. But, how does that help, when behind your urban lot is a million acres of scrub...

As a NorCal firefighter, it is scary when I look around the community, and see so many area's where we can not access because people don't maintain thier private roads, keep the brush back etc. Or driveways. Been down drives where we had to make access for medical emergencies. Busted antenaes, lights, brush tearing down the side and top of the engine and medic unit.

This is a big issue, especially since grwoth is happening faster than change in requirements.

 

[RobertN]

RobertN,
We have similar topography where i live in Provence.

Yes, you are in the same classic Mediteranean climate. You are close to the same Latitude as California. Similar area's are on the west coast of Africa, South America, and Australia. And they have similar issues.

To prevent these fires int he future you pass a brush law and you put $$$ behind enforcement teams. Big fines make people toe the line.

That is one of the area's where things get complicated; who pays for it? If you propose new taxes, people get upset.

I do agree 100%.

 

[orezok]

I lived in San Diego for more than 20 years and built a number of the sub divisions that have been burned. Many of these are established housing areas from 1 to 30 years old. They are fully landscaped areas with no "brush" to speak of. Some burned only 4 years ago in the "Cedar" fire that killed 15 people. Dense housing yes, brush no in these areas.

I know the location where it jumped Interstate 15 and that is a 10 lane highway at that location. Fire breaks make no difference when the winds are blowing 50 to 80 miles an hour.

 

[_RaT_]

I lived in San Diego for more than 20 years and built a number of the sub divisions that have been burned. Many of these are established housing areas from 1 to 30 years old. They are fully landscaped areas with no "brush" to speak of. Some burned only 4 years ago in the "Cedar" fire that killed 15 people. Dense housing yes, brush no in these areas.

I know the location where it jumped Interstate 15 and that is a 10 lane highway at that location. Fire breaks make no difference when the winds are blowing 50 to 80 miles an hour.

Excellent point. When the wind blows hard, all bets are off. Living in the path of nature is a gamble. Folks in Florida and other Gulf states know this all to well.

 

[3RRL]

That is so true. With super high winds like that, embers carry for mile.
Several years ago during one of the So Cal fires near (East of) Temecula, I was playing in a golf tournament at Temecula Creek off the 15. The fire was about 20 miles away but the greens had burning embers on them and ashes all over. Some of the embers were like the size of a cigarette or a small cigar and still smoldering. There's no controlling that.

 

[tallyho8]

I just hate it when someone says "why would anyone live in a place like that?"
Everytime a hurricane hits the gulf area, a tornado hits Wichita Falls, a firestorm or earthquake hits California, a blizzard hits Buffalo NY, there is always someone living in a different area who brings up this question.

I believe that all areas of the earth are prone to natural disasters but we all have our specific reasons for living there. I have heard that Kentucky was the safest state to live in to be safe from natural disasters but what would it be like with all 250,000,000 Americans living there?

 

[LMTC]

I just hate it when someone says "why would anyone live in a place like that?"
Everytime a hurricane hits the gulf area, a tornado hits Wichita Falls, a firestorm or earthquake hits California, a blizzard hits Buffalo NY, there is always someone living in a different area who brings up this question.

I believe that all areas of the earth are prone to natural disasters but we all have our specific reasons for living there. I have heard that Kentucky was the safest state to live in to be safe from natural disasters but what would it be like with all 250,000,000 Americans living there?

A lot less dense than any city. Considering only land area in KY (and hey, there are a LOT of houseboats that can fit on Lake Cumberland and elsewhere), it would result in 9.85 people per acre.

Of course, the New Madrid fault runs through western KY.

 

[MossRoad]

A lot less dense than any city. Considering only land area in KY (and hey, there are a LOT of houseboats that can fit on Lake Cumberland and elsewhere), it would result in 9.85 people per acre.

Of course, the New Madrid fault runs through western KY.

That brings up a good point... even a mid sized town like mine (South Bend, IN) has more people than 10 per acre and it isn't that crowded.... although my acre only has 4 people on it, the average city acre here has what appears to be 6 houses on it. Assume 2 folks per house and that's 12 per acre. Pop a couple/three kids in a few houses and its easily up to 20 per acre. And that's just houses, not appartments. And the town isn't that crowded. Now, parts of it are horribly depressed economically, but parts of it are still very nice and both parts still have the same population density until you get into the newer subdivisions on the outskirts, where the home prices are driven up and the lots are larger....

Which brings up one more point that is not being touched on too much on the news. They keep talking about how orderly the people are in the stadium and comparing it to the super dome chaos after Katrina.... I heard an interesting discussion yesterday on some radio talk show...

1. Katrina wiped out everything; fire services, police, roads, national guard access to those places, places to get food, water, shelter, etc... while the fires in California did wipe out homes, the roads are still intact, the police and fire can access areas as needed, people can still get food and water, etc...

2. The socio economic differences between the people inthe fire zones in California VS the people that live in the neighborhoods in New Orleans most affected by Katrina. The two areas are just not the same. Affluent people in large homes in exotic location VS the old, inner city neighborhoods in New Orleans.

Two completely different groups of people with completely different financial means in completely different situations (fires VS hurricanes), makes it very hard to compare the two disasters. Katrina was much larger than the fires in California and affected more people and more infrastructure.

 

[LBrown59]

I just hate it when someone says "why would anyone live in a place like that?"
Everytime a hurricane hits the gulf area, a tornado hits Wichita Falls, a firestorm or earthquake hits California, a blizzard hits Buffalo NY, there is always someone living in a different area who brings up this question.

I believe that all areas of the earth are prone to natural disasters but we all have our specific reasons for living there. I have heard that Kentucky was the safest state to live in to be safe from natural disasters but what would it be like with all 250,000,000 Americans living there?

All those others not being there is probably what makes it great.